MINUTES
June 26, 2007
TRUSTEES PRESENT:
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman
Howard S.
Freedlander, representing Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Pat Langenfelder
Judith C. Lynch
Dr. James Pelura
Robert F. Stahl, Jr.
Joe Tassone, representing Secretary
Richard E. Hall, Department of Planning
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary
Roger L. Richardson, Department of Agriculture
TRUSTEES ABSENT:
Jerry Klasmeier,
representing Comptroller Peter Franchot
Christopher H. Wilson
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rodney Banks,
David Bowman, Landowner,
Roy Carter Bowman, Landowner,
Anne Bradley,
Tammy Buckle,
Diane Chasse, MALPF Administrator
Yates Clagett,
District Manager, NRCS,
James Conrad, MALPF Executive
Director
Carol Council, MALPF Administrator
Rama Dilip,
MALPF Secretary
Nancy Forrester, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of General Services
Carmela Iacovelli,
Joo Kim, Landowner,
Joy Levy,
Roger Mann, Builder,
Carla Martin,
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney
General, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Graham Petto,
Maryland Department of Planning
Barbara Polito,
Donald Reuwer,
Landowner,
Daniel Rosen, Planner, Maryland
Department of Planning
Charles Rice,
Daniel Sager, MALPF
Intern
Donna Sasscer,
St. MaryÕs County, Program Administrator
Beverly Shriver, Landowner,
Donna K. Landis-Smith, Queen AnneÕs County,
Program Administrator
Gloria Smith,
Stewart Smith, NRCS,
Martin Sokolich,
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF
Administrator
Daniel Colhoun,
Chairman, called the meeting to order at
The Chair asked the guests to introduce
themselves.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES/ADDITION OR DELETION
OF AGENDA ITEMS:
A.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS
Motion #1: To approve the
minutes of May 22, 2007 with amendments.
Motion: Pat
Langenfelder Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
B. ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS:
Re-Certification
of County Agricultural
Land
Preservation Program
III.C.5 Queen
AnneÕs County District Petition Withdrawn
James
Conrad, Executive Director of the Foundation,
introduced Daniel Sager, the MALPF Intern.
Mr. Sager helped the Foundation staff compile the district
applications.
Doug Wilson, representing Secretary Roger L.
Richardson, Department of Agriculture, handed out copies of the magazine,
ÒGreat American Agriculture,Ó at the meeting. The magazine had a good article on
Maryland Agriculture, and Mr. Doug Wilson encouraged the attendees to take
their copies.
Mr. Colhoun thanked Board members Judith Lynch and Pat Langenfelder for their dedicated efforts and presented to
them certificates of appreciation for their service to the Board.
Ms. Langenfelder has represented the Farm Bureau and, because
she plans to submit an easement application on her farm, she resigned from the
MALPF Board to eliminate any appearance of conflict of interest.
Ms. Lynch
has completed her second term with the Board and has agreed to continue until
another Board member representing the Agriculture Commission is appointed.
Mr. Conrad
stated that the Foundation is, when possible, giving landowners an option when
an insufficient funds offer is made.
In counties with FRPP allocations, the Foundation is offering a full
offer with the FRPP language in the easements with federal funds making up the
difference for the full offer, or the landowner can accept the insufficient
funds offer with the standard easement language. Three properties have been approved by
FRPP, and the Foundation is now waiting for the easement language to be
accepted. To help the County
Program Administrators answer questions that may come up, Mr. Conrad handed out
a draft document explaining the differences that arise while accepting an
easement offer with a commitment of federal funds. Mr. Conrad planned to send the document
to the landowners getting the offers explaining how the FRPP program restrictions
are different from those of the standard easement program.
Mr. Conrad
updated the Board members about MALPF subcommittee reports. Vera Mae Schultz, Uses Committee, will
be making her recommendations at todayÕs meeting. The Equine Committee is almost ready
with its report, and Mr. Howard Freedlander, Equine Committee, Chair, will be
making a presentation when he joins the Board meeting. Mr. Conrad planned to send the report
with a cover memo to the Horse Industry Board members. The report with their comments will come
back to the MALPF Board for a review.
Mr. Conrad stated that he and Mr. Freedlander would like to meet with
the Horse Industry Board to discuss the recommendations before the report comes
back to the MALPF Board. To some
extent, they must look at the report from their own perspectives rather than
from the perspective of the FoundationÕs statutory constraints and
regulations. Therefore, some
discussion will probably be useful for full understanding on both sides.
Mr.
Conrad informed the Board members that he is starting the work on the winery
uses committee. He hoped to submit
his report to the committee for discussion by the middle of August 2007.
II. DISTRICT
/EASEMENT AMENDMENTS
A.
1. 21-98-02 Shriver,
Beverly J. 100.41
acres
Request for a 0.25-acre partial termination of
district property
Ms. Shriver is the original owner of the district
property. The current request is
for the partial termination of 0.25 acres of the district property to erect a
cell tower.
The district has one pre-existing dwelling. There have been no requests for lot
exclusions. Ms. Shriver withdrew
her FY 2007 easement application to make this request. She has applied for the FY 2008 easement
offer cycle, assuming approval of the partial termination.
According to
The request has been approved by the local advisory board
and meets with all Planning and Zoning requirements.
NOTE: The
proposed access for the 0.25-acre partial termination will be by
right-of-way. In e-mail
correspondence, Carol Council, MALPF staff, notified the Program Administrator
that staff would recommend the access be included in the partial termination
because approval of the request would result in a commercial use of the
property. The Program Administrator
responded that the reason the landowner does not wish to include the access in
the partial termination is because it would negatively affect her ranking in
the FY 2008 easement acquisition cycle if the remainder of the property were
less than 100 acres. At the
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for
partial termination of 0.25 acres because it meets the FoundationÕs policy for
partial termination and will not result in greater than three development
rights. The remainder of the farm
will continue to meet the FoundationÕs criteria for district establishment.
Beverly Shriver was available at the
Board meeting to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Shriver informed the Board that the
farm lane is used primarily for farming purposes. Ms. Shriver owns the additional property
of 3 acres consisting of a trailer lot that she rents out. They are not using the farm lane anymore
because they have put an access directly off the main road on Route 68 (even
though they retain a recorded right-of-way). The farm is a milking operation, and Ms.
Shriver would like that to continue.
The tiny quarter acre is not going to affect the milking operation. The right-of-way access area is very
convenient.
Ms. Shriver located the cell tower
on the aerial map provided with the agenda memo. The cell tower is the little square on
the center of the property and is one of the highest elevations on her
property. It is located between two
limestone outcroppings. It is not
in the cropland area, and Ms. Shriver did not foresee any problems.
Motion #2: To approve the
request of Beverly J. Shriver for a 0.25-acre partial termination of district
property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: James Pelura
Status: Approved
B.
1. 08-01-15A Bowling,
Clark B., Sr., et al. 50.163
acres
Request for a 9.0-acre partial termination of district
property
Mr. Bowling and others are the original owners of the
district property. The current
request is for the partial termination of 9.0 acres of the district property.
The district has no pre-existing dwellings. There have been no requests for lot
exclusions. The property is
contiguous to over 500 acres of MALPF district property.
According to
The request has been approved by the local advisory board
and meets with all Planning and Zoning regulations.
NOTE: According
to
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for
partial termination of 9.0 acres because it meets the FoundationÕs policy for
partial termination and will not result in greater than three development
rights. The remainder of the farm
will continue to meet the FoundationÕs criteria for district establishment.
Charles Rice, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Rice informed the Board that the
operation consisted of beef, cattle, and grain. The landowners are requesting a partial
termination to participate in the countyÕs TDR program and wanted to exclude
the area for potential future lots for their children. It is a landlocked parcel, and the only
way the landowners can subdivide the area is to obtain fee access from
adjoining properties.
Motion #3: To approve the
request of Clark Bowling, Sr., and others for a 9.0-acre partial termination of
district property.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
C.
1. 03-07-88-03A Kim, Hong Sam and Joo Hee 36.099
acres
Request for the relocation of a pre-existing
dwelling and re-designation of existing dwelling as an agricultural support
building
Mr. and Mrs. Kim are subsequent owners of this easement
property. The current request is
for the relocation of an existing dwelling for the purpose of constructing a
new home for Mr. and Mrs. Kim and to allow the existing dwelling to be
re-designated as an agricultural support building, specifically for hand and
small tool storage and a farm management office.
According to
During the 2006 session, the legislature passed House Bill
90, which grants explicit discretion to the FoundationÕs Board of Trustees to
approve the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling and subsequent conversion of
an existing dwelling to agricultural use.
The bill states that the proposed agricultural use must be Òintegral to
the farm operation.Ó Also,
Foundation regulations state that the replacement dwelling may not be located
Òin an area that interferes with any agricultural useÓ (COMAR 15.15.04.03B(2)(b)).
Foundation staff has communicated to
The existing dwelling is located adjacent to a barn. The proposed location of the relocated
dwelling is an area that is not farmed, at the edge of a field. Mr. and Mrs. KimÕs farm is primarily a
crop operation (leased).
The soils map (copy attached with staff memo) indicates that
the soils where the current dwelling is located are Class IV. The soils of the area of the proposed
relocated lot are Class II.
The proposed relocation site will require a new 9-foot wide
driveway approximately 400-feet long.
Staff has requested justification from the County for why the proposed
lot could not be accessed from a common right-of-way. This other means of access could shorten
the proposed driveway by 100 feet.
According to Wally Lippincott,
Program Administrator, the County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board
visited the property and concluded that the proposed location would not be
detrimental to the agricultural capability of the farm. While the soils are Class II soils, the
area is not farmed because it is at the edge of the field where it begins to
slope.
The request was approved by the local advisory board and
complies with local zoning regulations.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, MDA, has
previously advised the Board (see attached October 2006 meeting minutes) that
the term Òintegral to the farm operationÓ is at the discretion of the Board and
that the intent of the law may be to ensure the building has a ÒlegitimateÓ
agricultural use.
Foundation staff recommends approval with the condition that
the original dwelling be converted to the stated agricultural use within a
specified period of time (staff suggests a period no longer than one year from
the issuance of a use and occupancy permit for the replacement dwelling). Additionally, prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit, the landowners should provide photographic evidence that
the kitchen from the existing dwelling has been removed.
Staff further recommends that, if the Foundation approves
the request, Mr. and Mrs. Kim must enter into a written agreement with the
Foundation, to be recorded among the county land records, describing the terms
and conditions of the Foundation's approval. The agreement would run with the land
and bind all future landowners.
Mrs. Kim, Roger Mann, builder of the new home, and Carmela Iacovelli, Agricultural
Preservation,
Ms. Iacovelli informed the Board
that the Kims have owned the property since
1998. Most of the field is leased
to other farmers, and Mrs. Kim is farming mushrooms in the garage. The letter handed out by Mrs. Kim gave
more details of their production.
The Kims grow mushrooms and sell the produce
at a Korean market in the
Mr. Colhoun informed the Board
that he visited the site and met with Mrs. Kim. Mr. Colhoun
stated that he believed the location of the house as shown in the aerial map is
tillable. Mr. Colhoun
did not see any mushroom operation. Mrs. Kim informed Mr. Colhoun
that currently they are not in the mushroom business due to economic
factors. Mr. Colhoun
asked Mrs. Kim to share with the Board what they planned to do in the future
with the mushroom business.
Mrs. Kim displayed the mushrooms they sell at the Korean
market in
Mr. Doug Wilson asked if the Kims
currently live in the old house.
Mrs. Kim answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that the old house is a historic
structure. He wanted to know if
there are any county rules about what the owners can do with a historic
structure.
Ms. Iacovelli stated that, as far
as she is aware, the historic planners want to preserve the structure.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that, given that this structure is currently
used as a residence, the Foundation should get something in writing from the
Historic Registry stating that the proposed use by the landowners is acceptable
to the historic preservationists.
Mr. Colhoun asked Ms. Iacovelli if she had pictures of the current dwelling. Ms. Iacovelli
responded in the negative.
Robert Stahl, Board member, asked if the landowner is
willing to have a non-subdividable lot.
Ms. Iacovelli stated that Mrs. Kim
has indicated that she is willing to make it a non-subdividable
lot.
Mr. Doug Wilson asked Mrs. Kim to inform the Board about the
most recent or current farming activity undertaken in the barn. For the house to be converted to an
agricultural structure, it must be integral to the farm.
Ms. Iacovelli stated that Mrs. Kim
has indicated in her proposal the intention to use the barn to grow mushrooms,
although the landowners are not currently growing mushrooms there.
Mrs. Kim stated that they bought the property in 1998 to
grow mushrooms inside the barn.
They could not afford the mortgage, and so she and her husband took jobs
off the farm. Mr. Mann added that,
because mushrooms could only be grown nine months of a year, it was difficult
for the operation to make a profit.
If the Kims can keep the dwelling as an agricultural
structure (which historic people favor), they can use it and gain three months
to grow mushrooms, instead of not growing mushrooms over the winter. During the winter, they move the
operation to what would become the former dwelling.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the property
has ever been placed before the Landmark Commission.
Ms. Iacovelli stated that the
property has been placed before the Landmark Commission. Mr. Mann has made an application to put
the property under historic register.
Mr. Conrad believed that if the property goes on the
Landmark list, it could not be torn down.
Generally if the Foundation approves something to be converted into an
agricultural structure, it is with a condition that it will be torn down if it
is no longer maintained as an agricultural structure in the future. On the one hand, there is a condition
that, as long as it is integral to the farming operations, it is okay; but, on
the other hand, when it ceases to be integral to the farming operation, it is
torn down. In the future, if the
structure is no longer integral to the farming operations, the FoundationÕs
policy is to require that it be torn down.
Mr. Mann stated that the structure would no longer have a
septic system; that has to be removed.
The new septic system on the plat is above the old house. One of the conditions of the program is
to remove the septic system, the kitchen, and the bathrooms. This would take the home closer to what
it was when it was built in early 1800.
As long as the outside is maintained, the historic society will be
satisfied. By using it as an
accessory structure, the inside will be maintained, too. Mr. Mann stated that he could get the
pictures of the existing dwelling to the Foundation at a later date. The property is a farmhouse, has a name
on it, and has a preliminary number 1189.
Mr. Conrad was concerned that the Foundation is creating a
double bind. Farmland is available
for farming, but it just doesnÕt have to be farmed. In this case the structure is available
for farming purposes, but it goes against the letter of the law in the sense
that it is not necessarily integral to the farming operations.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if it were a regular house,
the attorneys would suggest that, if it no longer continues as a mushroom
facility, it should be torn down.
In this case, it is a historic structure with a rule that it cannot be
torn down. If in the future (100
years from now), the new owners do not wish to maintain the structure, it will
fall into a state of disrepair. But
it could not be torn down because the historic people will have language that
would not allow the house to be torn down.
Mr. Doug Wilson wondered if the Foundation could have a special
arrangement with the historic people to address the issue.
Vera Mae Schultz, Vice Chairman, wondered if the historic
designation could be abandoned.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know who would be responsible for
maintaining the structure; the Landmark Commission or the owners?
Mr. Mann stated that the owners maintain the structure. They donÕt have to renovate it, but have
to keep the roof on it.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to know about the area of the
property where the current dwelling is located, assuming that the structure
would no longer exist. He wanted to
know if the topography would allow farming.
Mr. Mann stated that once you are down the hill up to the
level of the house, it is a very level spot.
Craig Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Agriculture, wanted to know about the possibility of going back to the historic
group and discussing the issue with them.
Ms. Iacovelli stated that it is a
possibility.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the Maryland General Assembly has
said very clearly that, when there is a re-location, the existing house needs
to be torn down or converted permanently into a non-residential use integral to
the farm.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the Board is concerned about
situations that may come up in the future.
Mrs. Kim may decide in the future not to farm mushrooms and sell her
property. The Foundation loses
control of its property.
Mr. Mann wanted to know what would happen if the Kims sold the property, and the new owners did not want to
farm.
Mr. Nielsen stated that in such a case the owners would lose
their agricultural assessment. The
covenants that run with the land require the property to be maintained. If the property is not maintained, there
will be a violation. In the future,
if the building is no longer used for farming, the Foundation has the right to
request that it be demolished.
Mr. Colhoun suggested Mr. Mann to
go ahead with the process with the Landmark Commission to examine the range of
options.
Mr. Doug Wilson recommended a motion to table the agenda
item. Mr. Mann can go back to the
Landmark Commission and obtain a condition that, if the structure is no longer
maintained as part of the farming operation, the Foundation would be able to
require a demolition of the building.
If the Landmark Commission says Òno,Ó the landowners
should consider whether they should pursue the designation of the Historic
Registry, or not.
Mr. Mann stated that he thought it would be wise to move
forward to the Landmark Commission.
It is in the preliminary list and is still open. Someone had created a list of historic
structures back in 1980s that included pictures of the house.
Mr. Colhoun stated that, for the
benefit of the Board members, Mr. Mann would need to define what is meant by
the ÒHistoric RegisterÓ and explain what its restrictions are.
Mr. Conrad noted that under normal situations the Foundation
does not have the right to inspect interior structures. In cases of relocation, the recorded
document should give the Foundation a right to inspect the interior of the
re-designated structure.
Mr. Mann did not foresee a problem and stated that it would
be agreeable.
Mr. Colhoun suggested the
landowners can come back with more information, and the MALPF staff would be
willing to help.
Motion #4: To table the request
of Hong Sam Kim and Joo Hee
Kim for the relocation of a pre-existing dwelling and re-designation of
existing dwelling as an agricultural support building.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
D.
1.
Request for a 4-acre partial termination of
district property
Mr. and Mrs. Bowman are the original owners of
the district property. The current
request is for a partial termination of a 4-acre district property. The landowners have rejected a FY 2007
easement offer.
The Bowmans are
requesting a partial termination of a 4-acre area of the district. The area is around an existing
house. The access will be a
right-of-way. The Bowmans previously requested two acres be released for
estate planning purposes around the one existing dwelling, but the Health
Department is requiring 4 acres to be subdivided. The report was attached with staff memo. The County will not permit the 4 acres
to be further subdivided.
The request was approved by the local advisory
board and conforms to local zoning regulations.
Staff recommends approval. The request falls within one of the
allowable reasons for partial termination of land from districts under the
FoundationÕs partial termination policy.
Specifically, the land requested to be terminated from the district will
allow fewer than three lots (the maximum allowed under the partial termination
policy). The district will continue
to meet the minimum size and soils criteria.
Roy Carter Bowman, David Bowman, and Tammy
Buckle, Program Administrator, were available at the meeting.
Ms. Buckle stated that Mr. Bowman has exhausted
his options with the Health Department to try to get an Òup-to 2-acreÓ lot
around his existing house. It has
been over a year and now finally the Health Department has told him that he
would be required to have 4 acres.
In October 2006, the Foundation sent a letter
stating that up to 2 acres would be allowed to be subdivided around the
house. Mr. Bowman cannot have a lot
larger than that unless he did a partial termination. Last year Mr. Bowman had put in an
easement application. Mr. Bowman
chose to reject an offer to straighten out this issue. The only way to satisfy the Health
Department and get the 4 acres is by partial termination. Mr. Bowman has reapplied this year for
an easement.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the issue is with
the septic system itself or is it the septic reserve. Ms. Buckle stated that the issue is with
the septic system itself.
Mr. David Bowman stated that the Health
Department is requiring a lot more acreage in the area of the county where they
are currently living.
Mr. Conrad commented that he and Ms. Forrester
have started the conversation that they would to like to pursue with the
Department of Environment to understand its rules, regulations, statutes, and
would like to pursue further this discussion later this summer, as time
permits.
Motion #5: To approve the
request of Roy Carter and Grace E. Bowman for a 4-acre partial termination of
district property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
E.
1. 20-84-04 Knauer, Irvin 583.54
acres
Request for a 2.5-acre partial termination of
district property
Mr. Irvin is the original owner of the district
property. The current request is
for the partial termination of 2.53 acres of the district property.
The district has two pre-existing dwellings. On
According to
The request has been approved by the local advisory board
and meets with all Planning and Zoning requirements.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request for
partial termination of 2.53 acres because it meets the FoundationÕs policy for
partial termination and will not result in greater than three development
rights. The remainder of the farm
will continue to meet the FoundationÕs criteria for district establishment.
Request to amend the District Agreement to separate the
district into four districts
In addition to the request for partial termination is a
request to amend the District Agreement to separate the property into four
districts to facilitate selling easements on the property.
According to
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request because
the four districts meet the FoundationÕs soils and size criteria for district
establishment.
Martin Sokolich, Program
Administrator, was available at the Board meeting. Mr. Sokolich
informed the Board that the family has been farming the land for more than 40
years and wanted their daughter to move back into an existing house on the
property. In the process, they had
to upgrade the septic system, which is how they arrived at the 2.5 acres necessary
for partial termination to create the lot around the pre-existing house.
Mr. Sokolich stated that he had
assumed that the process has been completed. Recently, when the discussion about the
subdivision of the large farm into four districts came up, he realized that the
other matter had not yet been resolved.
The farm is almost 600 acres and that is the reason for the property to
be broken into four different districts to apply for an easement sale.
The family has arrived at an understanding. The parents and the daughters want the
land preserved and are ready to apply for an easement.
Mr. Conrad mentioned that there have been several exclusions
on the property. Mr. Conrad wanted
to know, if all the exclusions are added together, how many development rights
have been taken off from the original district.
Mr. Sokolich stated that it would
be difficult to say because the exclusions were done in small pieces. The CountyÕs agricultural zoning is 1
unit per 20 acres. Little more than
10 acres was taken from Area B, and less than 2½ acres from Area D. Most of the exclusions allowed for one
dwelling per exclusion.
Mr. Conrad stated that, out of the 10 acres that were
excluded earlier, there is only one development right associated with it. There has been a development right taken
off around a pre-existing dwelling on B.
The 2.53-acre lot represents a single development right. So two development rights have been
taken off, and there is one existing dwelling.
Mr. Sokolich agreed and stated
that there is one existing dwelling on A that has been included in the
district; it wasnÕt withheld at all.
The rationale of subdividing the property into four districts was based
on the location of the roads. They
also tried looking at soils, topography, or the fence line.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know about the relationship between the
ownership and retained lot rights if easements were to be sold on the
properties. If the landowner
brought in the farm as a single easement, he would have one ownerÕs lot and 2 childrenÕs
lots (or 3 childrenÕs lots). Mr. Conrad
wanted to know if the landowner is intending to keep the ownership of all the
parcels, or if he plans to transfer the rights to his children. Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the
landowner would end up creating additional lot rights beyond what he would have
had it been in a single district.
Mr. Sokolich stated that the
landowner does not intend to do that.
Mr. Sokolich has not spoken to the daughters
who will eventually become the owners.
Currently, Mr. Knauer owns the property. Mr. Sokolich
was not aware of the arrangements in the will.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he would move approval for both
actions and wanted MALPF staff to note in the records that, if the property
comes to the Foundation for an easement purchase, the Foundation will note the history
of this approval and evaluate the acceptance of the easement or easements based
on the ownership structure of the property.
Motion #6: To approve the
request of Irvin Knauer for a partial termination of
2.5 acres and, also, to amend the District Agreement to separate the district
into four districts.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Robert Stahl
Status: Approved
F.
1. 13-79-05Ces1 Reuwer, Donald and Deborah 213
acres
Request for an overlay forest conservation easement
onto MALPF easement property
Donald and Deborah Reuwer are the
current owners of this easement property.
The original grantor of the easement was Long Valley Farm, Inc. The current request is for an overlay
forest conservation easement.
There are two dwellings on the property: the pre-existing principal dwelling and
a tenant house. The tenant house
was approved by the MALPF Board on
To meet the forest conservation law requirements on another
property (i.e., off-site mitigation), the Reuwers are
requesting a forest conservation easement that will be located within 100 feet
of either side of a stream. The Reuwers will not know the exact acreage involved until a
forester prepares a plan. The Reuwers would like the MALPF BoardÕs approval before
undergoing the expense of acquiring the plan.
Attachment A with the agenda item is a copy of the recorded
standard forest conservation easement used by
This request has been approved by the local advisory
board. The request meets the FoundationÕs
Policy for Overlay Easements (Attachment B attached with agenda memo).
A second option is to allow no-cut language in the forest
conservation easement because stream buffers may be a required part of a soil
conservation and water quality plan.
Foundation staff recommends approval of the request with the
condition that the actual easement document must include language approved by
MALPF (Attachment C attached with staff memo) and be reviewed and approved by
the DGS Assistant Attorney General.
Donald Reuwer and Joy Levy, Program Administrator, were available
at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Ms. Levy informed the
Board that she had talked about the no-cut provision to the Soil Conservation
staff in the County. The attorney
for
Ms. Levy stated that,
when the Winkler overlay easement was approved, there was additional language
put into the Forest Conservation Easement to address the ability to do
harvesting in specific areas.
Though the actual acres and the area have not yet been determined, Mr. Reuwer felt it would be better to have the MALPF approval
before a forest management plan is developed.
Mr. Tassone asked if Mr. Reuwer
has decided to have harvesting under forest management plan or as a no-cut
provision.
Mr. Reuwer stated that he would
like to have the option to do harvesting in the language. There are steep slopes along the stream,
and he would like to plant a 100-foot buffer to protect the stream. The question is what exists in that area
now versus what doesnÕt. The
original easement holder was an experimental farmer. One of the things he experimented with
was multi-flora rose along the fence lines. The stream valleys had multiple rows of
sycamore trees. Mr. Reuwer wanted to clear those trees out and replant
everything as shown on the plan.
Some of this area has pasture that is close to the stream.
Mr. Doug Wilson wanted to remind the Board members that
there was lot of debate and discussions on the concept of allowing forest
mitigation types of easements on MALPF properties. The MALPF Board decided to allow the
landowner to do certain things. As
a part of the best management plan, the landowners were allowed to mitigate in
one way or another. There are some
areas where Soil Conservation would not allow farming, but the Foundation would
allow a mitigation easement on those areas because it served the best
management practices in agriculture.
In other kinds of mitigation, such as forest mitigation, the Foundation
believed that it is not in the business of telling the farmers what to
grow. We have several people among
our list of easements who have grown trees and,
because of their contractual arrangements, may be growing trees forever. The Foundation had decided that it was
not its role to determine what they could or could not grow as long as what
they grow can be harvested.
Mr. Doug Wilson believed the only issue is whether the
farmers can manage that as a crop within certain boundaries. How much are they allowed to
harvest? If it is one tree every
hundred years, it is not agriculture.
If it is selective cutting, the issue is to determine the definition of
selective cutting.
Mr. Conrad commented that a landowner is limiting to some
degree what can be grown on his property.
Because MALPFÕs older easements have the
25-year termination clause based on the profitability of the property, which
could be affected with less flexibility in moving from one kind of production to
another, approval of anything on the property that limits production
flexibility should be done only if the landowner waives the 25-year termination
clause as a condition for any such an approval.
Mrs. Schultz stated that she was curious if the off-site
development considered other locations for mitigation. If so, then why was an easement property
selected for mitigation?
Mr. Reuwer stated that the demand
for areas for forest mitigation exceeds supply. People are looking for locations
everywhere.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that the MALPF Board does not have
specific information. A general
direction to the landowner can be given that this is an acceptable
practice. The Board need not
approve anything specifically, but can give a broad direction that the
landowner can pursue.
Mr. Colhoun agreed and stated that
the MALPF Board should have clear guidelines. Mrs. Schultz wondered if the existing
overlay easement policy really gives a sufficient guide for the MALPF Board to
make a decision, or does the Board need to do a policy review as it did for the
wetland mitigation policy.
Mr. Tassone believed that the current request differs from a
wetland situation. In the situation
of wetland mitigation, we are necessarily taking land out of production. In this case, the practice maintains
agricultural production, but limits production to a small sub-set of
production. Mr. Tassone agreed with
MALPF staffÕs recommendation of approving the request with the condition that
the actual easement document must include language approved by MALPF and be
reviewed and approved by the DGS Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that he doesnÕt have any problem in
referring the issue to a committee to evaluate the specifics of forest
mitigation issues. However, he was
concerned whether or not the Board should hold up Mr. ReuwerÕs
request. We have a pending request
in
Mr. Colhoun asked if Ms. Levy
could bring back specifically what the
Ms. Levy stated that, in the Winkler easement, there is an
item that specifically talks about where the planting can happen and that
originates from the CountyÕs policy.
One option is to follow what was done in the Winkler property. The other option would be that Mr. Reuwer gets his forest management plan, and it becomes exactly
clear as to where it is going to be, how much on either side of the stream, and
there would be both a plan and specific easement language which the Foundation
Board can review.
Mr. Conrad commented that Mr. Nielsen pointed out that the
language pertaining to provision #5 has already been reviewed and approved by
the MALPF Board.
Ò5. Timber harvesting pursuant to a Timber Harvest Plan
that will retain long term forest land use and functionality of the forest by
limiting tree removal to 25% of the basal area and limiting timber harvest
frequency in any area to once every 30 years following the initial harvest.Ó
Ms. Levy stated that there is more to item #5 in the actual
Winkler easement. The language
includes the CountyÕs policy of 100-ft. stream buffers, wetland buffers, and
plantings on steep slopes, and so on.
Ms. Chasse stated that language was taken out because this
particular forest conservation easement was proposed for a 100-feet stream
buffer.
Mrs. Schultz commented that, when the Board was considering
the wetland mitigation policy, one of the factors that was
discussed was the type of development being facilitated off-site. She wondered if the Board should
consider that issue in other mitigation, such as forest mitigation.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if this
mitigation allows for harvesting in
Mr. Tassone pointed out Ò25% of the basal area and
limiting timber harvest frequency in any area to once every 30 years following
the initial harvestÓ outlined in #5.
Mr. Colhoun believed that there is
a limitation on the ability to treat the mitigation areas as normally
harvestable forest agriculture, and he feels that there is a need to look again
at this issue.
Mr. Conrad stated that, under the Forest Conservation Act, some
counties allow mitigation requirements for development to be met by mitigating
on already preserved lands, and others do not. Mr. Conrad personally believed, if the
MALPF Board felt there should be a change in forest mitigation requirements or
even allowing it on MALPF properties, the change should be statewide, rather
than on a Òparcel by parcelÓ basis.
Motion #7: To approve in
concept the request of Donald and Deborah Reuwer for
an overlay forest conservation easement on MALPF easement property with the
condition that the actual easement document must include language reviewed by
the DGS, Assistant Attorney General, and approved by the MALPF Board.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Status: Approved
Ms. Levy wanted to clarify that, based on this approval, Mr. Reuwer can go ahead
with his forest management plan with all the specifics and bring it back to the
Board.
Mr. Colhoun confirmed Ms. LevyÕs
characterization.
Mr. Reuwer wanted to have some
guidelines as to what distance from the stream the trees in the buffer should
be harvestable.
Mr. Colhoun stated that he would
like to leave that entirely to the technical people, and Mr. Reuwer can discuss the issue with the Soil Conservation
District and others.
III. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
PETITIONS
A.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
Looking at the map, Mrs. Schultz,
wanted to know if there is any wetland.
Tammy Buckle, Program Administrator, stated that the soils
in the area that suggest wetlands were in fact Class III. She was not sure if was a mistake on the
map.
Mr. Conrad mentioned that wetlands do not count when one
calculates the eligibility of the parcels.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum soils criteria and
the size exception criteria set forth in COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(i): A parcel of
less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins a 50
acre parcel which has been approved by the Foundation as an agricultural land
preservation district.Ó
Mr. Tassone pointed out that in the staff description
general farming operation indicated Ò10-year Conservation Reserve
Program.Ó He wanted to know what
this meant.
Ms. Buckle stated that the property is under CRP and is under
a 10-year contract. The staff
report should indicate that the area is under CRP and is not actively farmed.
Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, Queen AnneÕs
County, was present at the meeting and stated that she also has these programs
in her County. It is a federal
10-year contract. CREP is the
strips and the buffers around the area, and the CRP is the whole field and is
limited to a 10-year contract. At
the end of the 10-year contract, the landowner can terminate if they choose.
Mr. Conrad added that the Foundation considers it to be
active agriculture.
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
Mr. Tassone read out the note Òzoning of 2 houses per acreÓ
mentioned in the staff report. He
wanted to know if this area is zoned for public sewer.
Ms. Buckle clarified that the County does not require public
sewer in the R1 single-family residential zone (which is minimum ½ acre lot for
water and sewer). The County
requires a conventional system or a mound system on those lots.
Mr. Tassone wondered about the 46.3 acres in the middle of
an agricultural area.
Ms. Buckle stated that the zoning map would show that the
line is drawn across the center of the farm. Back in the sixties when the lines were
drawn, they did not use the roadways. In this particular parcel there was a
private roadway.
Ms. Buckle had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Bartenfelder about the zoning of the property. When Mr. Bartenfelder
submitted his easement application, he expressed his interest in putting the
rest of the property in the program.
8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
9.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval based on meeting
minimum size and soils criteria.
Staff also recommends the landowner acquire a forest stewardship
plan. If the landowner sells an
easement, a FSP will be required.
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
11.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
12.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
13.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
14.
Emerson,
Charles and Dolores
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils criteria.
15.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
Motion #8: To approve the
request of items 1 to 15 (except item 14) to establish agricultural land
preservation districts on their respective properties with appropriate
recommendations.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: James Pelura
Status: Approved
Ms. Forrester pointed out that the staff report of
Ms. Buckle apologized that, by an oversight, the application
might have been submitted incorrectly.
As a general practice, Ms. Buckle explains the Foundation policy to all
the landowners, especially when they want to hold out their subdivision lots
prior to entering the program. Ms.
Buckle discusses how their action may jeopardize their easement sale on the
property. Ms. Buckle had informed
the landowners about the overall StateÕs policy and that, if they donÕt have at
least two development rights, they may not be able to sell the easement on
their property. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
and Mr. and Mrs. Emerson decided that they wanted to take care of subdivision
of their lots prior to coming into the program. Ms. Buckle personally did not consider
it as withheld acreage because the plat was recorded prior to the landowners
signing up for the program.
The landowners could have had the deed
changed. The landowners did this
before they entered the program knowing that they have only two development
rights left; one that has to remain with the property and the other that can be
sold. There are two separate lots
on the record prior to entering the program. Ms. Buckle believed these lots
should be considered out-conveyed and not as withheld acreage. The landowners retained one development
right on site and one TDR.
Mr. Tassone stated that the easement price would
reflect this.
Ms. Buckle reminded the Board that this is a
waterfront property.
Mr. Tassone stated that, if the Foundation does
not approve withholding the acreage, then it has to pay for all the development
potential.
Mr. Conrad pointed out that the top part
indicated ÒPermanent Conservation Reserved AreaÓ and down below that area was an
area entitled Òwetlands.Ó This
suggests that there are no remaining areas of the property where any remaining
development rights could be exercised.
Ms. Buckle stated that what the surveyors meant
is that the landownersÕ intention to enter the program would be to permanently
preserve that area; it is not already preserved. The labeling was the landownersÕ
mistake, and it should not have been recorded the way it was recorded. It is not currently preserved; that is
what the landowners are pursuing.
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if the
application is considered with withheld acreage, it becomes ineligible.
Ms. Buckle pointed out that they did this
subdivision before applying to the program. The changes are recorded. They have been created as separate lots
before coming into the program.
The attorneys were concerned about the
precedents if the request is approved, but noted that it is the BoardÕs
decision to approve or not.
Mr. Stahl stated that, if the landowners were
truly interested in preservation, they can consider the CountyÕs TDR program.
Mr. Tassone noted that he took part in the task force that
developed the withheld acreage policy for MALPF. At the time of developing the policy,
there was a considerable debate on instances when landowners were excluding the
acreage from their current farm or when they were subdividing the acreage
before entering the program. The
task force decided that they would not get into the ÒpriorÓ subdivision issues
because it is difficult to determine the time (how far back? 5 years ago, last
year, weeks before they came into the office and so on). So the task
force did not address the issue.
Mr. Colhoun asked how the County
would deal with the issue in case MALPF is not involved in the process.
Ms. Buckle stated that she hoped the landowners would
continue to farm. It would be
considered preserved by the County, could not be developed further, unless
zoning changes. Under a TDR
program, there is no permanent easement.
The County trains and educates the landowners that once they lift the
development right from the land, the development right cannot be placed back on
the property unless it has been assigned as a receiving area by the
Mr. Conrad wanted to know the types of lots requested by the
landowners in their easement application form; whether they are family lots,
unrestricted lots, or did they waive all their rights.
Ms. Buckle confirmed that the landowners waived all their
rights. Ms. Buckle had informed
them the Foundation has a policy and will not purchase an easement if there are
fewer than two development rights.
On the subdivision plat, the Emersons will be
living on lot 1 and the Smiths will be living on lot 3.
Mr. Colhoun wanted to know if the
Board is comfortable with the arrangement.
Carol Council, MALPF staff, commented that it is important
that the MALPF Board defines what it considers to be withheld acreage because
many times in the past 12 years, she has set up a district that has one
deed. This deed has several
described parcels. The landowner
wants to put only parcel 1 into his district. The MALPF Board has allowed them to put
one parcel as long as it meets the FoundationÕs criteria. The Foundation staff does not inform the
Board that the landowner is withholding parcels 2 and 3. Ms. Council believed it is important
that the MALPF staff understands what the Foundation considers to be withheld
acreage.
Mr. Conrad stated that so far there have been two stages at
which the Foundation can evaluate an application Ð at the district level and at
the time of easement application.
Very soon the Foundation will not have two stages at which to evaluate
them.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated in the future the Foundation would
have an easement application for parcel 1.
Parcel 2, 3 and 4 will not have been included, though they are all under
the same deed. Foundation staff
wants to know if the Board is going to consider the other three parcels as a
withheld acreage. If they are, the
application will not be eligible.
Mr. Tassone stated that it is important to know the
landownersÕ intention on the other parcels. The MALPF Board accepts the statement of
intention from the landowners.
There is a distinction between acreage withheld Òto do whatever the
landowner wants to doÓ and acreage withheld Òso that the landowner can bring it
as a separate district or easement.Ó
Elizabeth Weaver, MALPF staff, commented that many times the
landowners outline just a small area on the map to indicate withheld
acreage. The appraisers have no
guidance as to how much development could take place on that piece of property
withheld. The Foundation could or
could not give directions to the appraiser. In this case, it should be already
subdivided off, and it is very clear as to what is remaining on the other
parcel.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that a landowner might have a certain
number of development rights: 10 or
15. Waterfront property has enormous
potential. The landowner is trying
to arrange the property in such a way that only two developments right remain
on the property. From the StateÕs
perspective, the Foundation gets a fair amount of property at a fair price
compared to the totality of what it might get otherwise. To insist on keeping the property in one
piece might result in making the acquisition too expensive to do within a given
jurisdiction. The landowner can
then decide to come into the program later after splitting up the property and
bringing in the individual parts.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that two years back the Foundation
decided to allow the landowners to split up the property before bringing it
into the program, either to facilitate its acquisition for the State, or to accomplish
certain limited objectives of the landowner. There are programs in the United Stated
that donÕt allow that; either the entire property is in the program or it is
not.
Mr. Freedlander stated that the bottom line is to preserve
farmland at a reasonable cost. He
has seen very expensive properties coming up in Board of Public Works.
Mr. Tassone was concerned about allowing the landowner to
take four rights off the property and develop them on subdivided acres adjacent
to the preserved acreage, contrary to the FoundationÕs policy. The purpose of the policy is to not end
up holding easement properties broken up by residential subdivision.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the counties
could have a checklist when they prioritize their applications.
Ms. Buckle believed that in her opinion the ranking in this
particular property is not going to be too high. Ms. Buckle stated that the landowners
are likely to discount steeply and would get less for their easement than would
many inland properties.
Mr. Stahl wondered whether or not, based on the logical
implications of this kind of policy, it is possible that the Foundation will
end up buying all the residues of a clustered development.
Motion #9: To approve the
request of item 14 to establish agricultural land preservation districts on
property (even though the property withholds more acreage than the Foundation
policy allows, it results in a good potential easement deal that would result
in the Foundation purchasing the one remaining on-site development right).
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Doug Wilson
Favor: Doug
Wilson, Howard Freedlander, Joe Tassone, James Pelura
Opposed: Pat Langenfelder, Judith Lynch, Robert Stahl
Abstained: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approval
(at this point in question) [see later]
Pat Langenfelder, Board member,
commented that, in the previous month, the Foundation has made offers to
several landowners. Some of the
properties were ranked very low in the County, but, because they were
discounted, they were the ones who got the offers. The properties that received the offers
may not be necessarily the most productive farms.
Mr. Tassone stated that he has been involved in the
operation of the certification program and writing the task force reports. He is aware that there are major issues
until land use and zoning tools are in place and there is a coherent strategic
process whereby areas get designated for preservation. On the other hand, the Board has to make
decisions based on the limited discretion it has .
Mr. Doug Wilson commented that, if the County did not want a
property in the program, it does not need to submit the easement application
for the property. The County
Program Administrator knows the property, recognizes the high discount values,
and he or she probably knows the relative value of the property. If the County is worried about taking
money or opportunity from other applicants, it does not have to submit the
application. There is nothing that
requires the County to submit everything it receives. The Foundation processes only what it
receives from the counties. Each
county has the responsibility to run the program in the best interest of its
jurisdiction.
Mr. Nielsen pointed out that, according to the statute, the
motion needs to be approved by the majority of the Board Trustees at-large, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the State Treasurer. The motion for this particular agenda
item had the approval of the representative of the Secretary of Agriculture and
the State Treasurer, but did not have the majority of at-large members.
Mr. Doug Wilson recommended re-voting on the agenda
item. The earlier approval is
technically void because it was not approved according to statutory
requirements.
Mr. Colhoun believed that the
first vote was valid, but did not pass because it did not meet the statutory
requirement.
Mr. Nielsen commented that six at-large members were present
at the meeting, and four at-large members have to vote for the request to be
approved.
Ms. Buckle stated the acreage has its own tax identification
number. The entire acreage with the
tax identification number is put in a district. The property meets the minimum soils and
the size criteria. The Foundation
will be doing an injustice to the landowner by not preserving a beautiful piece
of property.
Mr. Doug Wilson stated that June is the month when the
Foundation deals with issues related to districts and easements. The idea is to allow applicants to
participate in the MALPF program.
Mr. Doug Wilson recommended that the Board members reconsider voting on
the request.
Mr. Colhoun agreed to allow a
re-vote on the Smith and Emerson district petition because he believed all
Board members might not have been aware of the statutory requirements, as
outlined by Mr. Nielsen.
Motion #9a: To approve the request of item
14 to establish agricultural land preservation district on the property.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Howard Freedlander
Favour: Judith
Lynch, Robert Stahl, James Pelura, Dan Colhoun, Doug Wilson, Howard Freedlander, Joe Tassone
Opposed: Pat Langenfelder
Abstained: Vera Mae Schultz
Status: Approved
B.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
Gloria Smith, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion #10: To approve the request of
Franklin and Robin Donaway and William and Aline Kenney to establish agricultural land preservation
districts on their respective properties.
Motion: Robert
Stahl Second: Pat Langenfelder
Status: Approved
C.
Queen
AnneÕs County
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum soils criteria and
the size exception criteria set forth in COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(1)(iv): A parcel
of less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins
land subject to a recorded instrument which permits agricultural activities and
contains restrictions that are the same as or more stringent than those found
in the FoundationÕs deed of easement, and the collective mass of these lands
total at leastÓ 50 acres.Ó
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum soils criteria and the
size exception criteria set forth in COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(1)(iv): A parcel of
less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins land
subject to a recorded instrument which permits agricultural activities and
contains restrictions that are the same as or more stringent than those found
in the FoundationÕs deed of easement, and the collective mass of these lands
total at leastÓ 50 acres.Ó
Donna Landis-Smith, Program Administrator, was
available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion #11: To approve the request of items
1 to 4 to establish agricultural land preservation districts on their
respective properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Pat
Langenfelder Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
D.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
Rodney Banks, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Motion #12: To approve the items 1 to 8 to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Judith
Lynch Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
E.
1.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval based on
meeting minimum size and soils criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum soils criteria and the
size exception criteria set forth in COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(i): A parcel of
less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins a 50
acre parcel which has been approved by the Foundation as an agricultural land
preservation district.Ó
5.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval based on
meeting minimum soils criteria and the size exception criteria set forth in
COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(1)(iv): A parcel
of less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins
land subject to a recorded instrument which permits agricultural activities and
contains restrictions that are the same or as or more stringent than those
found in the FoundationÕs deed of easement, and the collective mass of these
lands total at least 50 acres.Ó
Charles Rice, Program Administrator,
was available at the meeting to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Rice informed the Board that the two
Edelen properties are under Rural Legacy
easements. They are entering the
MALPF program to get the CountyÕs tax credit.
Mr. Tassone wanted to know about the
number of development rights on the Graydon Sears
property. Mr. Rice stated that
there would be three development rights.
The intention of the landowners is to participate in the TDR program.
Motion #13: To approve items 1 to 5 to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Howard
Freedlander Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
F.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soil
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soil
criteria.
Motion #14: To approve items 1 and 2 to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Howard
Freedlander Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
G.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum soils criteria and
the size exception criteria set forth in COMAR 15.15.01.03D(2)(a)(i): A parcel of
less than 50 acres may qualify for district establishment if Òit adjoins a 50
acre parcel which has been approved by the Foundation as an agricultural land
preservation district.Ó
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. The area being withheld
falls within the guidelines of the FoundationÕs withheld acreage policy.
5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. The withheld acreage was
16.22 acres.
Yates Clagett, Soil Conservation
District Manager, was available at the Board meeting to answer questions. Mr. Clagett
stated that the 16.22 acres withheld on the Brooks property is not contiguous
with the property. The withheld
16.22 acres is about half a mile away, but the deed describes it in the same
deed.
Motion #15: To approve the items 1 to 5 to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective properties
with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Howard
Freedlander Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
H.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria.
5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the landowner acquire a forest stewardship
plan. If the landowner sells an
easement, a FSP will be required.
6.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils criteria. Staff
also recommends the landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the
landowner sells an easement, a FSP will be required.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval based on meeting minimum size and soils
criteria. Staff also recommends the
landowner acquire a forest stewardship plan. If the landowner sells an easement, a
FSP will be required.
Carla Martin, Program Administrator, was available at the
meeting to answer questions from the Board.
Responding to a question on Mill Pond Station, LLC, and Ms.
Martin stated that the ownership is a partnership between two unrelated
couples. The applicants knew that
they were not eligible for family lots and so one of the couples, Harris, was
buying the existing house, barns and pastures from the partnership. They also wanted to have two lots for
their children.
Mr. Conrad asked as to why the allowable density on the
Watson property is different than the others.
Ms. Martin stated that, as can be seen from the tax map, the
property is between two communities, Fairlee and
Mr. Conrad asked if, under the county ranking, will the
property be ranked high or will be ranked low?
Ms. Martin stated that the County emphasizes the large
blocks away from development.
Because of the number of development rights on the property, this will
be ranked lower in the County.
Mr. Tassone asked about the two large farming parcels below
the Watson property. Ms. Martin
stated that the parcels south of the Watson property are non-agricultural. Parcel 26 and 22 on the either side are
zoned 1 per 3.
Motion #16: To approve the items 1 to 7 to
establish agricultural land preservation districts on their respective
properties with appropriate recommendations.
Motion: Joe
Tassone Second: Howard Freedlander
Status: Approved
IV. PROGRAM POLICY
A.
Uses
Committee Update Ð Vera Mae Schultz, Chair, Uses Committee
The full report on recommended uses of land in the MALPF
Program in addition to normal agricultural and silvicultural
uses was made at the February Board meeting. The portion of the report dealing with
Òfarm- and forest-relatedÓ uses was discussed and approved at the April 24
Board meeting. The portions dealing
with uses Òassociated with normal agricultural or silvicultural
operationsÓ and Òconducted in pre-existing dwellingsÓ were discussed and
approved at the May 22 Board meeting.
The committee presented the final portion of the
report: Òother uses.Ó Mrs. Shultz stated that the committee
attempted to have consistency. In some
cases the landowner could ask for a variation of a requirement, for example,
parking for an activity by a landowner for a charitable purpose. The event could be a large event and the
landowners may ask for a variation in their parking. This would require BoardÕs judgment.
Mr. Conrad quoted from the report: ÒÒA landowner whose land is subject
to an [MALPF] easement may not use the land for any commercial, industrial, or
residential purpose except É As determined by the [MALPF] [F]oundation, for farm and forest-related uses and home
occupations.Ó The first item on
the uses table mentioned #1 as activities by landowner, operator, or others for
gain for charitable purposes. Mr.
Conrad believed that the activity mentioned was extremely broad and may go far
beyond agricultural related home occupations and agricultural supporting
activities. Mr. Conrad stated that
he did not feel comfortable with the broader statement. Even though the activity has some
conditions, there is a possibility than an operation may have a charitable
purpose, but it may not be totally compatible with the farm supporting or home
occupations. The request does not
even require the approval of the MALPF Board, and Mr. Conrad was concerned
about this.
Mrs. Schultz stated that the committee was thinking of
similar cases as Mr. ColemanÕs request and not as a permanent activity.
Mr. Conrad was concerned about the possibility of having a
600 sq. foot retail operation with Boy Scouts selling something not
agricultural related or using an existing structure like a horse arena for
something that is not agricultural related.
Mr. Tassone stated that the conditions outlined for each
activity puts a constraints on the nature of activities, but it is not clear
how long the constraints can last.
Ms. Weaver stated that, if the Foundation staff did not feel
comfortable with the stipulations placed on the activity, the staff could bring
it to the MALPF Board for approval.
Mr. Conrad was concerned that landowners can perceive
incorrectly what they can do and what they cannot do.
Ms. Weaver reminded the Board members that the landowners have
to provide their proposal to the Foundation in writing. The Foundation will be responding to
landowners, and the landowners have to indicate their consent by signing the
agreement.
Mr. Nielsen stated that MALPF is a State agency and has
guidelines. Mr. Nielsen commented
that the guidelines on the uses can give a general idea on the types of
activity the Foundation may approve, but it is not a guarantee.
Mr. Doug Wilson believed that some of the activities must
stay at the staff level, and the staff can bring up the issue to the Board if
they feel uncomfortable.
Ms. Weaver suggested that the Foundation staff could give a
monthly report when such issues come up.
Mr. Colhoun agreed.
Board members and Foundation staff discussed the limitations
on hunting clubs. Mr. Nielsen
mentioned that a hunting club has to be an ancillary use to the agricultural
nature of the property.
Mr. Doug Wilson suggested that, for a year or two, all of
the uses outlined on the table could be discussed by the MALPF Board. Depending on how the cases progress,
direction can be given to the MALPF staff on the future requests.
Mr. Colhoun asked if the Uses
Committee could pool the suggestions being made, discuss them with Mr. Conrad,
and bring the results back for the BoardÕs review.
Mr. Rice commented that the committee would need more
direction to move further on the issue.
Ms. Buckle suggested the uses committee can meet with Mr. Conrad and a
few of the Board members to discuss and progress further on the issue.
Mr. Conrad stated that the uses committee has done a
commendable work. Mr. Conrad was
concerned that the Òother issuesÓ are the thornier area and would require close
attention. Mr. Conrad added that he
would work out an alternative draft in consultation with MALPF staff members,
Mr. Nielsen, and Ms. Forrester. The
draft will then be circulated, and the uses committee can work on the inputs
received.
Mr. Freedlander, Chair, Equine Committee, stated that Mr.
Stahl had raised a question about riding arenas and indoor stables. The original recommendation had
indicated not more than 2% of the farm should be used for parking. During his brief presentation at the
March 2007 Board meeting, a suggestion was made to increase the percentage to
4%. Mr. Freedlander was comfortable
with the change. Mr. Freedlander
hoped that he was being consistent with the uses committee on parking and
pervious issues. The other issue
was about horse racing/ steeplechase/ cross-country races.
Mr. Conrad mentioned that the FRPP requires a limitation on
2% impervious surface. If we go
higher for allowable impervious surface areas on horse farms, the Foundation
may end up with properties where people may consider a 4% or a 6% impervious
surface to be allowable and normal.
Because of impervious surface issues, horse operations might pose some
issues for the easements with commitments of federal funds.
Mr. Colhoun suggested that Mr.
Freedlander take these guidelines and re-circulate the chart to the horse
board. Mr. Conrad can write a memo
about what happens when federal money is involved.
B. Re-certification
request from
á
2,327 acres were preserved during the reporting period (FY 2004
and 2005), which is below the CountyÕs objective of preserving 3,000 acres per
year. However, in this time period,
less funding was available from MALPF and Rural Legacy. Overall, since 1993, the County has
consistently preserved more land than developed.
á
Of the total acres preserved, 629 were protected through the MALPF
program, the local PDR program preserved 609 acres, and 500 acres were
protected by easements donated to the Maryland Environmental Trust and the
local land trusts.
á
The
County has been successful in using all the preservation programs to preserve
land in large blocks of easements.
For example, a block of 10,000 acres of contiguous land in the Upperco area of northern
á
The
County continues to commit funding for the Agricultural Land Preservation
Program, allowing the County to participate in MALPFÕs
matching funds program. The County
also participates in Rural Legacy, but during this time period received reduced
funding from that program.
á
The County has recently (but not during this reporting period)
committed a full-time employee to conducting monitoring visits. This person has conducted fourteen site
inspections thus far.
The report recognizes the significant contribution that
donated easements make to the CountyÕs goals. The County also indicates that it would
like to support the development of local land trusts, but does not suggest any
means to do so. There is a recent
model that the County may wish to consider used by the Northern Virginia Land
Trust and soon to be implemented in
The staffÕs review of
The Foundation staff recommended that
Dan Rosen, Maryland Department of
Planning, and Carmela Iacovelli,
Program Administrator, were present at the meeting.
Mr. Rosen stated that the Maryland
Department of Planning recommended a re-certification of the County. Mr. Rosen commented that at one point
the County was backtracking on its 80,000 acre goal. Mr. Rosen wanted to know if the County
expected to lose 1,000 acres per year when the zoning is restricted.
Ms. Iacovelli
commented that, since the report was made, the County has hired a consultant to
review the CountyÕs land preservation program and make recommendations. The consultant has indicated the areas
the County can preserve and meet its goal of 80,000 acres.
Mr. Conrad wanted to know if the
County has changed the eligibility requirements for the County program. Ms. Iacovelli
stated that the County is not changing the requirement at this point in
time. The County follows the MALPF
guidelines.
Mr. Conrad commented that, because
of Helmore Farm, a debate had developed concerning
the ordinance in the County that can enable development to take place on
MALPF-preserved properties that the county zoning otherwise would not
allow. Mr. Conrad was curious to
know the status of this debate.
Ms. Iacovelli
stated that the County is still discussing it and believed that the County is
in the process of coming up with guidelines to tighten up the situation. Wally Lippincott,
Program Administrator, is handling the issue. The local agricultural board has
concluded that this ordinance needs to be corrected. The recommendations will be presented to
the County Council.
Mr. Rosen commented that, in
addition to having a very active MALPF Program, the County has its own TDR
program and five Rural Legacy areas (which received more money than in any
other county). The County also has
five local land trusts.
Motion #17: To approve the re-certification
of
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Judith Lynch
Status: Approved
With no
further business, Mr. Colhoun asked for a motion for
adjournment of the meeting.
Motion #18: To adjourn
regular session and move into an Executive Session.
Motion: Doug
Wilson Second: Joe Tassone
Status: Approved
The regular
session of the Board meeting was adjourned at approximately
Respectfully
Submitted:
_____________________________________
Rama Dilip, MALPF Secretary
__________________________________
James Conrad,
Executive Director